In your country, it's called Computer-Implemented Inventions instead, and I've heard that the UK patent office actually helps applicants word their patents correctly to cover software even if software patents "as is" are not enforceable.
The answer is simple. When their actions become so brash that the generally uninformed public becomes annoyed with them
That won't happen. People use the mainstream media as their sole information source about what's happening around the world, but surprise surprise, the news media companies are often the same companies running these lawsuits. And since they understand that this would sully their reputation, the simply keep the information out of the unwashed masses.
This works pretty good already. Few articles about copyrights, patents, etc, are ever published in mainstream media no matter how outrageous, while unimportant matters like Paris Hilton's last prison sentence or the latest reality TV star having a breast enlargement always make it to the front page.
I heard of a small case that happened on your shores when a company went to far. Ever heard of the British East India Company? It had to do with some added tax/levy or something being added to tea. I think it caused a bit of a riot in boston, local affair, easy to miss but some people were upset about it.
Are you joking? I would have modded you +1 Funny just for this. Surely you must have heard the name Boston Tea Party? And a local affair? According to many historians it helped spark the American Revolution.
The greatest thing that a linux advocate might do is present a simple list with supported products. NOT supported chipsets, simply a list with product numbers and a rating (Does not work, works for some, works most likely, if you can't get this to work you should run for US president).
There are hardware compatibility lists available. The problem is that many, or even most, people don't want to read them. A common complaint regarding Linux is that people want to get any hardware on the market, without checking Linux compatibility, and if it won't work, it's the fault of Linux.
They don't realize, like any other operating system, if you want it secure, you have to work to make it secure.
Not really, as good distributions come secure out of the box. If you enable any network-facing service, then you might have to do some work to secure it (e.g. SSH often comes with root logins enabled, which is one of the things most admins turn off first).
perhaps some people here could give advice on how to be more proactive in defending against such threats
Turning off any service that listens on an external port would be a good start, unless you actually want such a service to be running. In that case, you'll have to read up on that particular service and how to make it secure enough.
The only reason Linux isn't making inroads against MS on the desktop is that you can't go down to Best Buy and find computers with Linux pre-installed.
No, the reason is that consumers cannot run their pirated Photoshop CS3, or their pirated Windows games, on Linux.
Many governments have stated that they intend to convert to a format that is approved by ISO as an international standard in the near future. This is the entire reason why Microsoft is so keen on pushing OOXML though the ISO process. Because if they fail, they'd have to either implement native support for ODF or they would no longer be an option for many governments.
If those programmers don't want their code being used in a certain way, then they shouldn't use a license that allows that way. It is quite simple really, if they are upset because a license allows certain actions, they they should use a different one.
What part of "unintended interpretation of the GPLv2" do you not understand? Novell used a loophole, one that is now hopefully closed in the GPLv3. And when someone finds and uses a loophole to step around one of the main points of a license, people are rightly upset.
Please elaborate on this end run around the GPL.
The GPL requires that patent licenses are sublicenseable without royalties to any recipient of the covered code, while Novell and Microsoft sidestepped that requirement by providing patent covenants to each others' customers. Microsoft provided a covenant to Novell's customers and vice versa. Since Novell does not give a non-sublicenseable patent license to their own customers, they might abide by the letter of the GPLv2, but most certainly not the intent.
If Ubuntu sunk a huge pile of cash into Windows computability and asked the same question I suspect this forum would be full of congratulations.
The difference is that Ubuntu isn't affiliated with Microsoft, and is thus less susceptible of knowingly putting code patented by Microsoft into such Windows compatibility. This means that other Linux distributions could take the code from Ubuntu without being more vulnerable to infringement lawsuits than Ubuntu themselves.
With SUSE Windows compatibility software, it is possible that Novell knowingly inserted code that Microsoft has patented, since its customers are protected by the deal with Microsoft. That would make the code "enhanced" by Novell tainted and thus unusable to every other Linux distributor, which is against everything free software stands for.
Then why isn't Novell being attacked by Linux's other big sponsors as it appears they're infringing on the GPL.
They neatly sidestepped the issue by not handing out patent licenses themselves. In other words, Microsoft hands out patent licenses (or rather "covenants not to sue") to Novell customers and vice versa. Novell can (probably) distribute since they didn't hand out the patent covenant to their customers, even though they are partially responsible for it.
As you are probably aware of, the GPLv3 is designed to close this loophole.
Right, how well has that gone so far?
I'd say pretty well. They managed to get slightly more than half the P-members to vote yes (2/3 required) and 74% of all members to vote yes (75% required). If that isn't pretty well I don't know what is. There will be a new vote in February, and they will probably manage to ram it through then. They just need some more time "convincing" (read: bribing) the right representatives to vote yes.
What Ms. Jones doesn't seem to realize is that competition between software companies is a good thing.
Sure, but misrepresenting the capabilities of competitors' products is not a good thing. Novell's statement leads you to think that other distributions does not interoperate with Windows at all, which is patently false. Instead of claiming that no other distribution "works with Windows", they could argue about their improved integration with Windows domains and group policies.
Neither are Mac sales.
IIRC, Microsoft owns some 5% or so of Apple.:)
I thought groklaw was actually a well respected website.
It mostly is. Groklaw is a blog, which means that PJ will post her view as commentary. But what she also does is post every filing in the SCO case, along with almost all non-SCO-related major events that affect both F/OSS and law, such as posts about software patents, the Microsoft-Novell deal, the GPL, ODF vs OOXML, etc, together with her comments about these events.
Which part of the GPL v2 says that people should be able to use, modify and distribute their patent infringing code without any repercussions?
Nothing is infringing until a court says it is. What we have are mere allegations, but no evidence whatsoever. Microsoft has publicly stated that no such evidence will be provided, since that would make it possible for the F/OSS community to remove or sidestep their patents or worse, attack their validity in court.
In addition, what the GPLv2 says is that you cannot (re)distribute the covered package if it requires a patent license which cannot be sublicensed to any third party without royalties.
What concerns are these?
That it splits the community in half, those protected by the deal and those exposed to Microsoft's patent threats. The concern is that businesses will be coerced into using the Microsoft-approved Linux, freezing everyone else out.
We're also seeing people talking about legislation mandating the government use open document formats, something we weren't seeing a mere 10 years ago. Microsoft is losing the war
Not if they can ram their OOXML format through the standards process. Then everything will be business as usual for the next decade.
What's the open source alternative to these patent-laden programs? There isn't one?
Moonlight is open source, AFAIK. Whether it infringes Microsoft patents is still to be determined (and possibly never will).
I now understand how to get proper contributions for permissively licensed projects and thus ensure their continued success and freedom without subsidizing the competition.
So all you have to do is bore down 25-45 km, until the rock becomes red-hot
The problem is that very few materials keep their properties when heated to such temperatures. The WTC towers collapsed because the fires heated the steel until it lost its strength and thus its load-bearing capability. It didn't have to melt to do this. The same problem would probably affect equipment used to bore down into the red-hot lower parts of the crust. The drill bit would soften and lose its shape.
If the hardware vendor has no interest in selling machines with anything except Windows on them, why should he be forced to bear the additional costs of multiple OS choices?
Since they sell general-purpose computers, they should be forced to sell computers with no operating system (as an option at least). Had they sold appliance computers, which would be technically impossible to load with something else than Windows, they wouldn't have to offer a no OS option.
Most people do not understand what an OS is. They buy a computer. It's an appliance, like their DVD player or TV.
It doesn't matter what "consumers" think. A general-purpose computer is a general-purpose computer, regardless of whether they think that it is an appliance or not. It can run other operating systems, and thus should be offered (as an option) without Windows at the very least. Besides, appliances can usually not install extra applications, which pretty much proves my point.
It is true that we (Sweden) had an atomic bomb program, but none of our 10 currently operating power reactors are suitable to making plutonium for nuclear weapons. They are all light-water reactors running on low-enriched uranium.
That would be solved by using a gearbox, as they already do. I mean, have you ever seen a wind power generator where the rotor rotates at 3000 rpm? I haven't.
I don't understand why the environmentalists aren't clamoring for more nuke plants.
Because they want humanity to return to the medieval agricultural society. "Coal is bad, nuclear is bad, hydro is bad, wind is bad, everything is bad."
Slashdot Mirror
In your country, it's called Computer-Implemented Inventions instead, and I've heard that the UK patent office actually helps applicants word their patents correctly to cover software even if software patents "as is" are not enforceable.
That won't happen. People use the mainstream media as their sole information source about what's happening around the world, but surprise surprise, the news media companies are often the same companies running these lawsuits. And since they understand that this would sully their reputation, the simply keep the information out of the unwashed masses.
This works pretty good already. Few articles about copyrights, patents, etc, are ever published in mainstream media no matter how outrageous, while unimportant matters like Paris Hilton's last prison sentence or the latest reality TV star having a breast enlargement always make it to the front page.
Are you joking? I would have modded you +1 Funny just for this. Surely you must have heard the name Boston Tea Party? And a local affair? According to many historians it helped spark the American Revolution.
There are hardware compatibility lists available. The problem is that many, or even most, people don't want to read them. A common complaint regarding Linux is that people want to get any hardware on the market, without checking Linux compatibility, and if it won't work, it's the fault of Linux.
Reportedly, Windows Vista also has Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), which Linux got several years ago.
Not really, as good distributions come secure out of the box. If you enable any network-facing service, then you might have to do some work to secure it (e.g. SSH often comes with root logins enabled, which is one of the things most admins turn off first).
Turning off any service that listens on an external port would be a good start, unless you actually want such a service to be running. In that case, you'll have to read up on that particular service and how to make it secure enough.
Why not rather put that into your ~/.ssh/config file? Then you could have different settings for every server, like this:
The [TAB] above means a TAB character, although I think any whitespace will do.
No, the reason is that consumers cannot run their pirated Photoshop CS3, or their pirated Windows games, on Linux.
Many governments have stated that they intend to convert to a format that is approved by ISO as an international standard in the near future. This is the entire reason why Microsoft is so keen on pushing OOXML though the ISO process. Because if they fail, they'd have to either implement native support for ODF or they would no longer be an option for many governments.
What part of "unintended interpretation of the GPLv2" do you not understand? Novell used a loophole, one that is now hopefully closed in the GPLv3. And when someone finds and uses a loophole to step around one of the main points of a license, people are rightly upset.
Please elaborate on this end run around the GPL.The GPL requires that patent licenses are sublicenseable without royalties to any recipient of the covered code, while Novell and Microsoft sidestepped that requirement by providing patent covenants to each others' customers. Microsoft provided a covenant to Novell's customers and vice versa. Since Novell does not give a non-sublicenseable patent license to their own customers, they might abide by the letter of the GPLv2, but most certainly not the intent.
The difference is that Ubuntu isn't affiliated with Microsoft, and is thus less susceptible of knowingly putting code patented by Microsoft into such Windows compatibility. This means that other Linux distributions could take the code from Ubuntu without being more vulnerable to infringement lawsuits than Ubuntu themselves.
With SUSE Windows compatibility software, it is possible that Novell knowingly inserted code that Microsoft has patented, since its customers are protected by the deal with Microsoft. That would make the code "enhanced" by Novell tainted and thus unusable to every other Linux distributor, which is against everything free software stands for.
They neatly sidestepped the issue by not handing out patent licenses themselves. In other words, Microsoft hands out patent licenses (or rather "covenants not to sue") to Novell customers and vice versa. Novell can (probably) distribute since they didn't hand out the patent covenant to their customers, even though they are partially responsible for it.
As you are probably aware of, the GPLv3 is designed to close this loophole.
Right, how well has that gone so far?I'd say pretty well. They managed to get slightly more than half the P-members to vote yes (2/3 required) and 74% of all members to vote yes (75% required). If that isn't pretty well I don't know what is. There will be a new vote in February, and they will probably manage to ram it through then. They just need some more time "convincing" (read: bribing) the right representatives to vote yes.
Sure, but misrepresenting the capabilities of competitors' products is not a good thing. Novell's statement leads you to think that other distributions does not interoperate with Windows at all, which is patently false. Instead of claiming that no other distribution "works with Windows", they could argue about their improved integration with Windows domains and group policies.
Neither are Mac sales.IIRC, Microsoft owns some 5% or so of Apple. :)
I thought groklaw was actually a well respected website.It mostly is. Groklaw is a blog, which means that PJ will post her view as commentary. But what she also does is post every filing in the SCO case, along with almost all non-SCO-related major events that affect both F/OSS and law, such as posts about software patents, the Microsoft-Novell deal, the GPL, ODF vs OOXML, etc, together with her comments about these events.
Which part of the GPL v2 says that people should be able to use, modify and distribute their patent infringing code without any repercussions?Nothing is infringing until a court says it is. What we have are mere allegations, but no evidence whatsoever. Microsoft has publicly stated that no such evidence will be provided, since that would make it possible for the F/OSS community to remove or sidestep their patents or worse, attack their validity in court.
In addition, what the GPLv2 says is that you cannot (re)distribute the covered package if it requires a patent license which cannot be sublicensed to any third party without royalties.
What concerns are these?That it splits the community in half, those protected by the deal and those exposed to Microsoft's patent threats. The concern is that businesses will be coerced into using the Microsoft-approved Linux, freezing everyone else out.
We're also seeing people talking about legislation mandating the government use open document formats, something we weren't seeing a mere 10 years ago. Microsoft is losing the warNot if they can ram their OOXML format through the standards process. Then everything will be business as usual for the next decade.
What's the open source alternative to these patent-laden programs? There isn't one?Moonlight is open source, AFAIK. Whether it infringes Microsoft patents is still to be determined (and possibly never will).
Why would any uninterested party say anything about anything?
Why not share that little secret of your?
The problem is that very few materials keep their properties when heated to such temperatures. The WTC towers collapsed because the fires heated the steel until it lost its strength and thus its load-bearing capability. It didn't have to melt to do this. The same problem would probably affect equipment used to bore down into the red-hot lower parts of the crust. The drill bit would soften and lose its shape.
Please don't confuse non-polluting with renewable. Nuclear is certainly not renewable.
Since they sell general-purpose computers, they should be forced to sell computers with no operating system (as an option at least). Had they sold appliance computers, which would be technically impossible to load with something else than Windows, they wouldn't have to offer a no OS option.
Most people do not understand what an OS is. They buy a computer. It's an appliance, like their DVD player or TV.It doesn't matter what "consumers" think. A general-purpose computer is a general-purpose computer, regardless of whether they think that it is an appliance or not. It can run other operating systems, and thus should be offered (as an option) without Windows at the very least. Besides, appliances can usually not install extra applications, which pretty much proves my point.
Wow, that was a lot of power. I guess you swapped kWh for GWh by mistake.
It is true that we (Sweden) had an atomic bomb program, but none of our 10 currently operating power reactors are suitable to making plutonium for nuclear weapons. They are all light-water reactors running on low-enriched uranium.
That would be solved by using a gearbox, as they already do. I mean, have you ever seen a wind power generator where the rotor rotates at 3000 rpm? I haven't.
To neocons, everyone who isn't a neocon is part of the fringe. :)
Because they want humanity to return to the medieval agricultural society. "Coal is bad, nuclear is bad, hydro is bad, wind is bad, everything is bad."
Sure, but the crust is only 30-50 km thick. And mining in the mantle does not seem feasible to me.